AN ATX SMT FLC FINDS THAT THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE IN RVR REQUIREMENTS BTWN THE GOV AND THE COMMERCIAL CHARTS FOR ILS RWY 33 APCHS TO INT. THE FLC FOUND THAT THE FSS AT RDU WAS NOT REVIEWING ALL AVAILABLE NOTAMS WHEN THEY REQUESTED THIS INFO.

Narrative

DURING PREFLT BRIEFING FROM RDU FSS; WAS ASKED IF THERE WERE ANY PUBLISHED FDC NOTAMS FOR THE ARPTS AND RTES TO BE USED ON NOV/XA/97. NONE WERE GIVEN. ON APCH TO INT; THE GOV CHART FOR ILS RWY 33 WAS REFED. PUBLISHED MINIMUMS WERE 1141 FT MSL AND 2400 FT RVR. WX AT INT WAS RPTED AS 2400 FT RVR. THE APCH WAS COMMENCED; RWY ENVIRONMENT WAS IN SIGHT PRIOR TO 1141 FT MSL; AND WE LANDED. AFTER COMPLETION OF OUR TRIP; WE CAME TO REALIZE THAT THE COMMERCIAL CHART FOR INT ILS RWY 33 HAD SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT PUBLISHED MINIMUMS. 2 CALLS TO RDU FSS CONFIRMED THAT THERE WERE NO FDC NOTAMS FOR INT. NEITHER OF US (FLC) UNDERSTOOD WHY THE PUBLISHED NUMBERS WERE DIFFERENT; SO I CALLED THE COMMERCIAL CHART COMPANY ON NOV/XB/97. I SPOKE WITH A SPECIALIST AT THE COMMERCIAL CHART COMPANY'S TECHNICAL CHART DIVISION. AFTER DOING SOME RESEARCH HE FOUND THAT THERE WERE ACTUALLY 3 FDC NOTAMS THAT AFFECTED THE APCHS INTO INT. FDC NOTAM NUMBERS: 7/5029; 7/5027; AND 7/4996. THE SPECIALIST INDICATED THAT HIS COMPANY HAD INCORPORATED THE NOTAMS INTO THEIR CURRENT CHARTS FOR INT; GOV HAD NOT. TO CONFIRM THE INFO FROM THE SPECIALIST; I CALLED RDU FSS ON NOV/XB/97 AND ASKED IF THERE WERE ANY FDC NOTAMS FOR INT. I WAS TOLD NO! I THEN SPOKE TO A SUPVR. I CONVEYED TO HER MY CONCERN ABOUT NOT RECEIVING THE FDC NOTAM INFO EVEN AFTER REQUESTING IT FROM 3 CTLRS. SHE ALSO INDICATED THAT SHE DID NOT SHOW ANY FDC INFO FOR WINSTON-SALEM; NC. I GAVE HER THE FDC NUMBERS SUPPLIED BY COMMERCIAL CHART COMPANY. AFTER A FEW MINS; SHE CAME BACK ON THE PHONE AND INDICATED THAT THERE WERE FDC NOTAMS FOR INT BUT THEY WERE NOT IN THE COMPUTER; THEY WERE IN THE PUBLISHED FDC NOTAM BOOK DATED NOV/XC/97. WHEN ASKED AS TO WHY WE WEREN'T GIVEN THIS INFO IN NUMEROUS BRIEFINGS IN WHICH FDC NOTAMS WERE ASKED FOR; SHE INDICATED THAT NORMALLY ONLY THE FDC NOTAMS IN THE COMPUTER WERE GIVEN TO PLTS REQUESTING FDC NOTAMS AND NOT FDC NOTAMS PUBLISHED IN THE BOOK. THIS SIT IS UNSATISFACTORY! IT DIRECTLY CAUSES A CRITICAL SAFETY OF FLT ISSUE CONCERNING DISSEMINATION OF FLT INFO TO PLTS. IT ALSO CAUSED OUR INADVERTENT USE OF INCORRECT MINIMA FOR THE ILS RWY 33 AT INT RESULTING IN THE APCH TO BE CONDUCTED AND LNDG ACCOMPLISHED BELOW THE FDC PUBLISHED MINIMA OF 1191 FT MSL AND 5000 FT RVR. THIS WORD GAME OF 'PUBLISHED' FDC NOTAM INFO VERSUS FDC NOTAMS ON THE COMPUTER SYS AT FSS MUST END. WHEN A PLT REQUESTS INFO HE/SHE SHOULD BE GIVEN ALL PERTINENT DATA; NOT JUST INFO EASILY RETRIEVED OR CONVENIENT TO THE CTLR. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 386908: WE SHOT THE APCH AND LANDED WITHOUT INCIDENT. HOWEVER; WHEN WE GOT TO COMPANY OPS OFFICE; MY FO STATED THAT HE THOUGHT THAT THE MINIMUM FOR THAT APCH WAS 5000 FT RVR. WE LOOKED AT THE GOV PLATES AND CONFIRMED THAT IT WAS 2400 FT. HE THEN PULLED OUT HIS COMMERCIAL APCH CHARTS AND SAW THAT THE LATEST REVISION SHOWED THAT AN RVR OF 5000 FT WAS REQUIRED TO SHOOT THE APCH. (OUR COMPANY ISSUES GOV CHARTS TO EACH ACFT. THIS PLT ELECTS TO PURCHASE CHARTS ON HIS OWN.)